> But too often, people that prefer teamwork, really just want to be heard and receive credit for work done, together. But they're generally not very productive and their opinions not that valuable.
Not every team I've been on is like this, but this resonates. Some teams are the equivalent of group projects in school and I think most of us unfortunate enough to have endured those would agree.
For me, the best team is a group of like-minded and like-disciplined individuals that align well and otherwise operate separately.
> Great point about working on teams. For the vast majority of tasks, people are only marginally better or worse than each other. A few people with decent communication will outpace a "star" any day of the week.
Depends on what you are working on. Btw, good communication can also make someone a 'star' and elevate the whole team.
> I try to remind myself of this fact when I'm frustrated with other people. A bit of humility and gratitude go a long way.
For that kind of team, and that kind of play. But if you're like me, you can deal with workmates, it is just that a small amount of interaction with a small number of people is enough to be productive and yet not waste people's time.
> people are great at working not in their own interest, together, on something greater than themselves.
Only really true of small, tight-knit groups of people engaged in very similar kinds of work, where everyone knows that their contribution will be evaluated by everyone else. Hence small partnerships, co-ops or very early startups probably don't need management. These roles start to appear as scale increases.
Sometimes cooperation takes a whole more time than doing things by yourself if you know exactly what needs to be done. Adding more groups/interactions typically slow down delivery.
> You foster a team environment when you find ways for every one to care for/after every other one, in the perspective of the group (because the group cares for each part of itself, and each part cares about the group).
Basically this only exists if all the profits the group makes are shared equally between members. (if not all profits are shared, like being employed by an organization that takes a cut, the group will care enough to leave and form their own organization)
>Businesses require teams of talented people who can trust one another. Not everyone knows everything -- and if you think that everyone should just take advantage of each other, well, remind me to never hire you. Or work for you.
Keep in mind that this article is about hiring outsourced/contract/freelance labor, not future partners/members of a team.
> But that does mean that those people are actually needed in any way.
True, the presence of people who spend time coordinating is not sufficient for success, nor is their presence in any way evidence of success.
But the absence of people who devote time to coordination has definitely sunk projects I've been on, including ones stacked with brilliant rockstars. It may simply be correlation, but I have never worked on a large, successful project that lacked people who were willing to invest significant effort in coordination.
Might sound corny but -there is no I in team -.
Great leaders bring change by assembling great teams where everyone gets their time to shine and don't take the credit for it. Everyone wins.
> the very definition of "people who work well together" is that they are productive, and the definition of "don;t work well together" is that they aren't.
I don't agree.
Working well together suggests they cooperate to reach a common goal, regardless of their individual productivity.
Not working well together suggests that they might even waste their time attacking each other instead of working towards a common goal, which has a negative impact on a project regardless of how productive each individual might be.
>I am recognized as high performing and a good team builder
Is this not something that a good team builder would be able to fix, at least in theory? Team building is easy when everyone agrees and gets along; solving this issue would solidify your reputation (within and without).
Not all work is being performed by cooperating teams.
A lot of high-value work is carried out by individuals.
Some of those are not cooperative.
You don't need to be cooperative to be of high value.
It just helps in a lot of cases, and it's nice for others either way.
reply